[Spaceships] A reevaluation of missiles and point defense - Page 2

joelbf · 10-01-2008, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS

Yes, if the number of rockets is equal to or less than the number of successful PD hits, I'd say all were negated. I think proximity warheads are meant to only grant a +4 to hit, not increase your RoF against PD. If the warheads were meant to function in the manner you believe (which, I'll admit, makes a good deal of sense), I think the authors would have structured them more like shotguns - i.e., they give a RoF multiplier. I wish it had been specified better exactly how the proximity warheads are meant to function.

This is a good point that I missed. I have calculated point defence based on point blank range (100 miles), which should be waaaay before the proximity warhead split up.

My guess is that you only need to shot down the original missiles, that is max 10 at 3 minute scale and max 30 at 10 minute scale. This makes point defence even stronger.

Dinadon · 10-01-2008, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS

Yes, if the number of rockets is equal to or less than the number of successful PD hits, I'd say all were negated. I think proximity warheads are meant to only grant a +4 to hit, not increase your RoF against PD. If the warheads were meant to function in the manner you believe (which, I'll admit, makes a good deal of sense), I think the authors would have structured them more like shotguns - i.e., they give a RoF multiplier. I wish it had been specified better exactly how the proximity warheads are meant to function.

Given that an undefend proximity warhead attack can score a number of hits up to 10x shots fired, and that that is roughly equivalent to a +4 from RoF (on average), they are just about working under simplified shotgun rules.

Also, I don't quite see how shooting an incoming missle that is suppose to explode into shards gets rid of the entire missile. Wouldn't it just split up into multiple shards anyway? Somthing caused it to explode, and its suppose to do that before it hits the ship.

Ulzgoroth · 10-01-2008, 11:12 AM

Boobis, why would you use proximity nukes? You don't need the +4 to hit, and you're cutting your damage by a factor of 100. If you use the nukes as contact weapons, a TL12 SM+15 superdreadnought isn't likely to survive being hit.

SuedodeuS · 10-01-2008, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dinadon

Given that an undefend proximity warhead attack can score a number of hits up to 10x shots fired, and that that is roughly equivalent to a +4 from RoF (on average), they are just about working under simplified shotgun rules.

Also, I don't quite see how shooting an incoming missle that is suppose to explode into shards gets rid of the entire missile. Wouldn't it just split up into multiple shards anyway? Somthing caused it to explode, and its suppose to do that before it hits the ship.

Well, a proximity warhead does function as a shotgun (and you might be right about them just simplifying the RoF). Point defense is, as mentioned by Boobis, at point blank range - that is, ~100 miles. The warhead explodes when it's basically right on top of the ship (range 0), and that is how it deals its damage. If it detonated 100 miles prematurely, at best a few pieces of scrap are going to reach and hit the target. Although said scrap would be moving at impressive speeds, I doubt it would be able to do any real damage.

Think about a shotgun that fires buckshot at a tree from 1 yard away. Now think about the same shotgun firing buckshot at a tree from 10 miles away.

Ulzgoroth · 10-01-2008, 11:37 AM

Oh, about packing big crews into little craft...I agree that it's a bit odd. But each turret does contain a control seat and 24 hour limited life support, even the tiny little half-ton turrets of the 16cm missiles and 30KJ VRF beams.

As for overwhelming casualties among small craft, it's not that bad. So long as they keep formation, they can share point defense. If they have a reasonable number of PD weapons, that means they can stop a good deal of the incoming missile fire against the entire group. Some fighters will still have incoming, and dodge or perish, but between equal fighter groups it wouldn't be sudden annihilation. Between unequal fighter groups, the kill rate goes up sharply, so be sure to use your large-scale tactics well...

VRF guns are not a very good defense against fighters, for a capital ship, because the weapons the fighter will be firing at the capital ship will have to be missiles, with their L range. Even non-RF spinal guns don't really have enough damage to sting a large, well armored vessel (unless you're using 10cm antimatter warheads), and they're fairly vulnerable to point defense. VRF lasers work reasonably well, if you can carry a 100MJ VRF mount. Interestingly, you really want your small-craft killing lasers to be fixed weapons.

SuedodeuS · 10-01-2008, 12:22 PM

Honestly, so long as PD is sufficiently available to small craft (via automation or excessive crew sizes), I wouldn't expect them to go down all that quickly. The only way I wouldn't field small craft is if PD is unavailable.

As for my VRF gun comments, I honestly expect them to be the workhorse of fighters. Missiles are nice, but they're too easy to defend against (thanks to their low RoF and large size). Unless you get lucky, or are launching obscene numbers of missiles per target, in the opening stages of combat the missiles aren't going to do much more than tie up the PD gunners. I honestly expect fighters to engage the enemy by closing to the range of their guns and opening fire. Their PD turrets will keep any enemy missiles from hitting them - but enemy VRF guns are a different story, since their small size and high RoF make them very difficult to defend against. Honestly, if fighters are staying at range L and firing missiles, a capital ship will probably be safe taking its time to destroy them using its long-range lasers. Once the fighters have swooped in and softened up the PD with their guns, however, they'll be able to break off to range L and open up with missiles to finish the job.

Ulzgoroth · 10-01-2008, 12:50 PM

You can't soften up a capital ship's PD with fighter VRF guns. They just don't do enough damage. A 3cm shell is no match for SM+9 armor. Perhaps if you carry a merely RF gun or non-rapid gun for large-ship attack. 5cm is enough to have at least a chance of doing some useful damage.

Also, VRF guns are little more resilient to point defense than my model for missile launchers, for a given size of shot and accuracy. Their advantage is that they tend to gain more from small size than they lose from accuracy. But if you size them up to punch through heavy armor, they start to lose the smallness without gaining accuracy, so they head back toward one-to-one exchange with point defense guns. And guns do need to be powered.

joelbf · 10-01-2008, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS

Once the fighters have swooped in and softened up the PD with their guns, however, they'll be able to break off to range L and open up with missiles to finish the job.

Except that they can't harm capital ships even with spinal mounts, much less with VRF lasers.

joelbf · 10-01-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Boobis, why would you use proximity nukes? You don't need the +4 to hit, and you're cutting your damage by a factor of 100. If you use the nukes as contact weapons, a TL12 SM+15 superdreadnought isn't likely to survive being hit.

Dunno actually. Possibly to get more hits, but since rcl is +1 this is proabably moot. Since I couldn't even strike home with a single missile (statistically) arming them with nukes or not isn't going to make a difference :)

SuedodeuS · 10-01-2008, 01:59 PM

Maybe I'm not calculating damage correctly, then. According to pp. 59-61, ballistic weapons gain damage based on velocity. At standard scale and 3-minute turns, relative velocity is 10 mps, meaning damage would be multiplied by 10. Thus, the lowly 2cm shell (from an SM+5 VRF medium battery) deals a whopping 1050 damage on average, with an armor divisor of (2). An SM+15 craft (which is about 1 mile long) with two layers of hardened diamondoid armor (TL11) would reduce average damage to 50, which is but 5% of its total dHP. This isn't enough to disable a system, but recall that this is an average hit - it's possible to do more and thus disable a system in one shot (or do less and have the shell be useless). Were the shells fired from a VRF major battery (2.5 cm), they'd instead average 1260 damage each - enough to damage a system in one shot, or destroy it in two. And fear the VRF spinal battery (3 cm) - with a whopping 1470 average damage, it's quite possible to destroy a system in but one shot.

Throw one of these weapons up against something smaller than SM+15 (or just a streamlined SM+15), and they'll cause some serious damage. Of course, if you want to dedicate half of your modules per section to hardened armor, an SM+5 isn't going to do much of anything against you with guns. Unless they decide to aim for the weak points in your armor, that is.

10-01-2008, 11:12 AM	#13
Ulzgoroth Join Date: Jul 2008	Re: [Spaceships] A reevaluation of missiles and point defense Boobis, why would you use proximity nukes? You don't need the +4 to hit, and you're cutting your damage by a factor of 100. If you use the nukes as contact weapons, a TL12 SM+15 superdreadnought isn't likely to survive being hit.

10-01-2008, 11:37 AM	#15
Ulzgoroth Join Date: Jul 2008	Re: [Spaceships] A reevaluation of missiles and point defense Oh, about packing big crews into little craft...I agree that it's a bit odd. But each turret does contain a control seat and 24 hour limited life support, even the tiny little half-ton turrets of the 16cm missiles and 30KJ VRF beams. As for overwhelming casualties among small craft, it's not that bad. So long as they keep formation, they can share point defense. If they have a reasonable number of PD weapons, that means they can stop a good deal of the incoming missile fire against the entire group. Some fighters will still have incoming, and dodge or perish, but between equal fighter groups it wouldn't be sudden annihilation. Between unequal fighter groups, the kill rate goes up sharply, so be sure to use your large-scale tactics well... VRF guns are not a very good defense against fighters, for a capital ship, because the weapons the fighter will be firing at the capital ship will have to be missiles, with their L range. Even non-RF spinal guns don't really have enough damage to sting a large, well armored vessel (unless you're using 10cm antimatter warheads), and they're fairly vulnerable to point defense. VRF lasers work reasonably well, if you can carry a 100MJ VRF mount. Interestingly, you really want your small-craft killing lasers to be fixed weapons.

10-01-2008, 12:22 PM	#16
SuedodeuS Join Date: Sep 2008	Re: [Spaceships] A reevaluation of missiles and point defense Honestly, so long as PD is sufficiently available to small craft (via automation or excessive crew sizes), I wouldn't expect them to go down all that quickly. The only way I wouldn't field small craft is if PD is unavailable. As for my VRF gun comments, I honestly expect them to be the workhorse of fighters. Missiles are nice, but they're too easy to defend against (thanks to their low RoF and large size). Unless you get lucky, or are launching obscene numbers of missiles per target, in the opening stages of combat the missiles aren't going to do much more than tie up the PD gunners. I honestly expect fighters to engage the enemy by closing to the range of their guns and opening fire. Their PD turrets will keep any enemy missiles from hitting them - but enemy VRF guns are a different story, since their small size and high RoF make them very difficult to defend against. Honestly, if fighters are staying at range L and firing missiles, a capital ship will probably be safe taking its time to destroy them using its long-range lasers. Once the fighters have swooped in and softened up the PD with their guns, however, they'll be able to break off to range L and open up with missiles to finish the job. __________________ Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat. Latin: Those whom a god wishes to destroy, he first drives mad.

10-01-2008, 12:50 PM	#17
Ulzgoroth Join Date: Jul 2008	Re: [Spaceships] A reevaluation of missiles and point defense You can't soften up a capital ship's PD with fighter VRF guns. They just don't do enough damage. A 3cm shell is no match for SM+9 armor. Perhaps if you carry a merely RF gun or non-rapid gun for large-ship attack. 5cm is enough to have at least a chance of doing some useful damage. Also, VRF guns are little more resilient to point defense than my model for missile launchers, for a given size of shot and accuracy. Their advantage is that they tend to gain more from small size than they lose from accuracy. But if you size them up to punch through heavy armor, they start to lose the smallness without gaining accuracy, so they head back toward one-to-one exchange with point defense guns. And guns do need to be powered.

10-01-2008, 01:59 PM	#20
SuedodeuS Join Date: Sep 2008	Re: [Spaceships] A reevaluation of missiles and point defense Maybe I'm not calculating damage correctly, then. According to pp. 59-61, ballistic weapons gain damage based on velocity. At standard scale and 3-minute turns, relative velocity is 10 mps, meaning damage would be multiplied by 10. Thus, the lowly 2cm shell (from an SM+5 VRF medium battery) deals a whopping 1050 damage on average, with an armor divisor of (2). An SM+15 craft (which is about 1 mile long) with two layers of hardened diamondoid armor (TL11) would reduce average damage to 50, which is but 5% of its total dHP. This isn't enough to disable a system, but recall that this is an average hit - it's possible to do more and thus disable a system in one shot (or do less and have the shell be useless). Were the shells fired from a VRF major battery (2.5 cm), they'd instead average 1260 damage each - enough to damage a system in one shot, or destroy it in two. And fear the VRF spinal battery (3 cm) - with a whopping 1470 average damage, it's quite possible to destroy a system in but one shot. Throw one of these weapons up against something smaller than SM+15 (or just a streamlined SM+15), and they'll cause some serious damage. Of course, if you want to dedicate half of your modules per section to hardened armor, an SM+5 isn't going to do much of anything against you with guns. Unless they decide to aim for the weak points in your armor, that is. __________________ Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat. Latin: Those whom a god wishes to destroy, he first drives mad.